• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Does SAX make sense?
• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:14:26 +0200
• Organization: nil
• References: <E196lKL-0001Uj-00@b...> <02d301c30646$b3ddc9c0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• Reply-to: james.anderson@s...

in a sense, that sounds like an alternative interface to an abstract document
object model to me. what would be the qualitative difference?

Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> 
> I am idly wondering whether unpooled steaming Java APIs of XML documents (e.g. SAX)
> really make as much sense as we might like them to.
> 
> It strikes me that there are two factors that undermine the benefits of streaming processing:
> 
> * XML documents are rarely smaller than memory

?

> * Java implementations typically only garbage collect when they get "near"
>   to filling their heaps.
> 
> These two things conspire to make it that, for the lion's share of documents,
> by the time the SAX stream is finished, all the SAX events will be still
> in memory, though perhaps unreachable. If they are in memory, why not
> make them available?
> 
> ...
> 
> Does that sound right to anyone?

• References:
  • Re: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Does SAX make sense?
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What is XML's appropriate place in an office suite?
• Next by Date: XML Search Engines (Was: ANN: White Paper ...)
• Previous by thread: Does SAX make sense?
• Next by thread: RE: Does SAX make sense?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread